Dr. C. Boulias

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the injuries were minor soft tissue injuries.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was also dismissed as the applicant failed to provide evidence of his pre-accident activities to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and the cost of a multi-disciplinary assessment from her insurer.

The insurer terminated IRBs after 104 weeks and denied the assessment costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a restaurant crew member due to unresolved left shoulder tendonitis, entitling her to IRBs up to the 104-week mark.

However, the Tribunal concluded she did not meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, relying on surveillance evidence and vocational assessments showing she could perform alternative jobs.

The Tribunal also awarded partial costs for the multi-disciplinary assessment, finding the occupational therapy, orthopedic, and vocational components reasonable and necessary, while denying the psychological and neurological components.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor and subject to the MIG funding limit, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's assessor, whose opinion relied heavily on self-reporting without objective validation.

The disputed treatment plans, special award, and costs were denied due to a lack of supporting evidence.